4 ms·

This is a tangent to the original article, but a reply specifically to your comment on being "greedy" (by which I mean founders being sensitive to giving up eq

This is a tangent to the original article, but a reply specifically to your comment on being "greedy" (by which I mean founders being sensitive to giving up equity). Whenever an investor says "are you really going to quibble over 1%?" my instinctive reaction is "are you?" It goes both ways. Yes, 90% of a watermelon is better than 100% of a grape. And obviously the investor's perspective for an ROI and risk tolerance are different from the startup founder and it has to be worth it for them. But it's so insanely selfish to paint the founder as greedy when the investor is literally in the process of being a hypocrite. I actually understand the investor's perspective and realize they have a completely different context with their own goals, risks, assessments, etcetera and it's completely valid for them to have their own terms! I just despise when they frame the argument in such a tone-deaf manner. Yes, 1% fucking matters, otherwise you wouldn't be asking for it.

nostrademons 8y ago
Usually the answer to that is to get a competing term sheet. That way, the answer to "Are you really going to quibble over 1%?" is "No, I'm not, I'm going to go with the firm that gives me that 1% without quibbling." This also underscores the importance of doing fundraising in parallel and lining up as many offers as you can in a short period of time. If you're negotiating 1:1 you've already lost; you can't actually get market price unless you can make a market.
- dataisfun 8y ago
  This might work to maximize price but it won't necessarily land you with the best partners. The smartest, best money knows it and they make you pay for their investment. Moreover, approaching fundraising as a transactional auction in a quick sprint carries with it a bunch of "relationship debt." You're signing on to someone (your investor) you can't fire for the duration of your company's existence. Rushing into that might end up costing your company far more than the marginal gain from a bidding war. Just my two cents.
  - pedalpete 8y ago
    This goes against point #2 that the investor for the most part doesn't matter.
    - dataisfun 8y ago
      Point #2 is so patently absurd its hard to take seriously. One, YC are themselves investors, and as far as I know they don't position themselves as causally inert in relation to a company's success / one of many indistinguishable and arbitrary alternatives. Two, I don't think you will find many entrepreneurs who'd claim indifference around their investor choice. At the very least, this claim asks us to believe there aren't terrible investors who cause damage, which runs contrary to both common sense and history. [edited]
      - dataisfun 8y ago
        Well, mea culpa. The piece does address the issue of bad investors. My main beef is with the line, "in the end, while some investors are better than others, none of them translate directly to success," which I don't think is a credible claim, or at least warrants more evidence.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > This also underscores the importance of doing fundraising in parallel and lining up as many offers as you can in a short period of time Most early-stage raises lack the luxury of a competitive process. Bring able to trade concessions in terms for the win of a deal is a strong predictor for greater commercial sense. If someone can’t give away another point to fund their business, they may be in the wrong seat.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Globally or in Silicon Valley (and other tech hotspots)? It's common knowledge among experienced founders (or even just people who read a bunch of startup blogs) in Silicon Valley - that's why people raise "a round" of fundraising instead of just going to a single VC. In areas that aren't startup hotspots I can certainly see that dynamic, but this is why people move to the Bay Area for fundraising.
akharris 8y ago
It certainly does work both ways, but each player in a negotiation has a break point at which they walk away. You need to figure out what that is for you and for the other party. The issue with founders who over-optimize in fundraising is that they are rarely working with a clear, frame worked goal in mind. It's often "I just want better!" I understand this impulse. I've been there myself. I'm hoping to help people take a step back and consider the wider picture.
vincentmarle 8y ago
I agree with the other commenter that you need to avoid distributive negotiation on one scale (% ownership or price) because its outcome is inherently zero-sum. One way to resolve this, in addition to getting competing offers, is to add other elements into the negotiation so you’re no longer are negotiating on this one vector anymore. Try increasing liquidation preferences (or anything else that the invesor values more than you do) for example in exchange for the 1% percent. This way you end up with an integrative outcome: win-win situation.
bsder 8y ago
> Whenever an investor says "are you really going to quibble over 1%?" my instinctive reaction is "are you?" My reaction is even stronger: "Yes, I am. 1% to you is .02% of your fund--it's a rounding error. 1% to me is real money."
- rlucas 8y ago
  That's absurd. 1 point of the company at a given stage might be 5-10% of the total investment that the VC makes (given that VCs typically shoot for 10-20% of the company). The VC is doing, give or take, the same deal 10-20x in a portfolio. If you talk about that 1% becoming a norm, then it really moves the dial 5-10% on the total return for the VC. A founding team should be owning 60-80% of the company after that transaction. Meaning, the 1% ownership difference is something like 1.3% of the founders' total return. If you're going to try to do math on it, be fair and real. Full disclosure: VC here.
  - bsder 8y ago
    You are optimizing for the fact that you need all your companies to give you this since you can't predict the single "hit" that will generate the vast majority of the value of your portfolio. Founders are (or at least should be) optimizing for the fact that they are most likely to be a mediocre business that isn't going to cash out with a lottery ticket.
    - rlucas 8y ago
      I actually agree (broadly) with your statement about founders. As far as what the VC is optimizing for -- fair enough, I am only pointing out that saying the 1 point difference in, say, a 10 or 11 point equity stake is somehow actually only 0.2% to the VC isn't fair. It's a 10% difference in the VC's stake.

nostrademons 8y ago

Usually the answer to that is to get a competing term sheet. That way, the answer to "Are you really going to quibble over 1%?" is "No, I'm not, I'm going to go with the firm that gives me that 1% without quibbling." This also underscores the importance of doing fundraising in parallel and lining up as many offers as you can in a short period of time. If you're negotiating 1:1 you've already lost; you can't actually get market price unless you can make a market.

dataisfun 8y ago
This might work to maximize price but it won't necessarily land you with the best partners. The smartest, best money knows it and they make you pay for their investment. Moreover, approaching fundraising as a transactional auction in a quick sprint carries with it a bunch of "relationship debt." You're signing on to someone (your investor) you can't fire for the duration of your company's existence. Rushing into that might end up costing your company far more than the marginal gain from a bidding war. Just my two cents.
- pedalpete 8y ago
  This goes against point #2 that the investor for the most part doesn't matter.
  - dataisfun 8y ago
    Point #2 is so patently absurd its hard to take seriously. One, YC are themselves investors, and as far as I know they don't position themselves as causally inert in relation to a company's success / one of many indistinguishable and arbitrary alternatives. Two, I don't think you will find many entrepreneurs who'd claim indifference around their investor choice. At the very least, this claim asks us to believe there aren't terrible investors who cause damage, which runs contrary to both common sense and history. [edited]
    - dataisfun 8y ago
      Well, mea culpa. The piece does address the issue of bad investors. My main beef is with the line, "in the end, while some investors are better than others, none of them translate directly to success," which I don't think is a credible claim, or at least warrants more evidence.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> This also underscores the importance of doing fundraising in parallel and lining up as many offers as you can in a short period of time Most early-stage raises lack the luxury of a competitive process. Bring able to trade concessions in terms for the win of a deal is a strong predictor for greater commercial sense. If someone can’t give away another point to fund their business, they may be in the wrong seat.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Globally or in Silicon Valley (and other tech hotspots)? It's common knowledge among experienced founders (or even just people who read a bunch of startup blogs) in Silicon Valley - that's why people raise "a round" of fundraising instead of just going to a single VC. In areas that aren't startup hotspots I can certainly see that dynamic, but this is why people move to the Bay Area for fundraising.

akharris 8y ago

It certainly does work both ways, but each player in a negotiation has a break point at which they walk away. You need to figure out what that is for you and for the other party. The issue with founders who over-optimize in fundraising is that they are rarely working with a clear, frame worked goal in mind. It's often "I just want better!" I understand this impulse. I've been there myself. I'm hoping to help people take a step back and consider the wider picture.

vincentmarle 8y ago

I agree with the other commenter that you need to avoid distributive negotiation on one scale (% ownership or price) because its outcome is inherently zero-sum. One way to resolve this, in addition to getting competing offers, is to add other elements into the negotiation so you’re no longer are negotiating on this one vector anymore. Try increasing liquidation preferences (or anything else that the invesor values more than you do) for example in exchange for the 1% percent. This way you end up with an integrative outcome: win-win situation.

bsder 8y ago

> Whenever an investor says "are you really going to quibble over 1%?" my instinctive reaction is "are you?" My reaction is even stronger: "Yes, I am. 1% to you is .02% of your fund--it's a rounding error. 1% to me is real money."

rlucas 8y ago
That's absurd. 1 point of the company at a given stage might be 5-10% of the total investment that the VC makes (given that VCs typically shoot for 10-20% of the company). The VC is doing, give or take, the same deal 10-20x in a portfolio. If you talk about that 1% becoming a norm, then it really moves the dial 5-10% on the total return for the VC. A founding team should be owning 60-80% of the company after that transaction. Meaning, the 1% ownership difference is something like 1.3% of the founders' total return. If you're going to try to do math on it, be fair and real. Full disclosure: VC here.
- bsder 8y ago
  You are optimizing for the fact that you need all your companies to give you this since you can't predict the single "hit" that will generate the vast majority of the value of your portfolio. Founders are (or at least should be) optimizing for the fact that they are most likely to be a mediocre business that isn't going to cash out with a lottery ticket.
  - rlucas 8y ago
    I actually agree (broadly) with your statement about founders. As far as what the VC is optimizing for -- fair enough, I am only pointing out that saying the 1 point difference in, say, a 10 or 11 point equity stake is somehow actually only 0.2% to the VC isn't fair. It's a 10% difference in the VC's stake.